Officials Find Jail Violates State Codes

The Massachusetts Department of Corrections and the state Department
of Public Health assigned the Dukes County House of Corrections poor
marks for substandard safety and health provisions for inmates.

Inspection reports obtained by the Gazette through public records
requests revealed over 50 violations of state codes relating to fire
hazards, cleanliness and medical provisions for inmates over the last
year and a half.

"There is concern that something needs to be done with the
facility," said Howard Wensley, director of the division of
community sanitation in the public health department.

The violations, which range from moldy showers to dangerous fire
hazards in the cellar, have long been on the radar screen for the
Department of Public Health (DPH) and the Department of Corrections
(DOC).

Sheriff Michael McCormack this week conceded that the jail is
largely out of compliance - failing to meet 19 of the 26 randomly
selected standards the DOC inspector reviewed in October of 2001. But
these deviations, he said, reinforce the dangerousness of the 1870s jail
- a facility the sheriff's department has been campaigning
to replace for nearly two decades.

"People working for me are not working in a safe place. People
in my custody are not living in a safe place. Anybody who goes through
the jail can see that," Mr. McCormack said.

Every October, an auditor from the DOC selects for inspection about
two dozen regulations from over 100 laws governing the conditions of
state correctional facilities. The jail administrators review inspection
results in the October report before the auditor returns in April to
reinspect compliance with laws tested six months before.

While several of the noncompliance issues refer to procedures not in
place or paperwork not filed appropriately, many violations flagged by
the DOC auditor in October reveal alarming deficiencies. They include:

* No certificate of occupancy.

* Fire evacuation plan last reviewed in 1988.

* No secondary means of releasing inmates from cells during
emergency such as a fire.

* No emergency generator hooked up.

* Nurse has used a bathroom to triage inmate health complaints.

* Inmates do not receive physicals within the required two-week
time frame.

A state inspector at the department of public safety, according to
Mr. McCormack, refused to issue a certificate of occupancy several years
ago due to unsafe conditions for inmates.

In addition to these explicit violations of state laws, the DOC
inspector noted a lack of cleanliness in several parts of the jail. Mold
covered the wall of one shower and the inspector found no drain cover.
Inmate records lined the cellar floor in cardboard boxes. The
temperature in one refrigerator, used to store milk, had climbed to 48
degrees.

While the department corrected many of the noncompliance issues by
the DOC's return visit in April, nine of the areas -
including establishing a back-up means to release prisoners in an
emergency and the hook-up of the emergency generator - failed
inspection again. The DOC official also noted six new housekeeping
problems.

The Dukes County jail fared even worse in the department of public
health's inspection in May of this year - racking up a total
of 42 violations.

Inadequate conditions reported by the public health official
include:

* No ventilation, a broken toilet and a black toilet seat in
the 10-foot by 6-foot female cell.

* Dirty toilet and sink, exposed bars and a mattress on the
floor in A block.

* No ventilation, no windows and nonfunctioning bathroom
exhaust in the 1986 modular unit.

The jail is technically allowed to house 19 inmates, and all of its
cells are approved to hold only one prisoner. This week, 25 inmates
resided at the Dukes County House of Corrections - a count that
had climbed to 34 just a few years ago.

While the DPH is required to inspect state correctional facilities
each year, no one from the state agency had visited the county jail
since 1998. Fifteen of the 42 violations noted by DPH this year were
repeat violations from 1998.

"These are not dissimilar reports," Mr. Wensley said.

Of the DPH violations, a dozen require the replacement or addition
of equipment in the facility. Nine require maintenance of existing
equipment or appliances. But almost half of the 42 violations deal with
routine housekeeping matters - from lack of sanitizers in the
kitchen to a mop and bucket stored in the same areas as food products.

"Housekeeping is a daily issue - one we try and
concentrate on. I agree with the auditors. If something is less than
clean, there is no excuse for that," Mr. McCormack said.

The sheriff's department employs no custodian. Cleaning,
kitchen help, laundry and painting responsibilities are split among
willing inmates. Compensation comes in the form of time off their
sentences. For every month of chores completed satisfactorily, an inmate
can chisel two and a half days off the sentence. A year-long sentence
could easily be reduced to 11 months.

While the reports detail specific infractions in state codes,
neither inspection calls for the ultimate abandonment of the current
facility.

"No one is looking at the global issue. The smaller issues
don't matter a hill of beans until we rectify the larger
issue," Mr. McCormack said.

Despite the laundry list of violations at the Dukes County jail, the
state administers no penalties for failure to comply with minimal codes.
Lack of accountability from the state makes it easy to become resigned
to functioning out of compliance.

"There doesn't appear to be any large consequence [for
violations]," Mr. McCormack said, noting that the state shifts
liability responsibilities to the county by documenting fire, safety and
health problems within the facility.

Court mandates calling for immediate action in problem facilities
typically result from class-action lawsuits initiated by inmates. The
sheriff and a department of corrections official could not recall any
court action against a substandard facility being instigated by a state
agency.

Correction plans submitted by the sheriff's department in the
last year partially hinge on a new jail or substantial renovations to
the 130-year-old facility. In response to installing exterior windows in
B block, deputy superintendent Mary Lee McCormack said:
"Corrective action that would involve constructing exterior
windows is cost prohibitive at this time. Please note that we are
currently involved in funding that would enable us to construct a new
facility or make major renovations to the existing one."

But airport commissioners threw the sheriff's department a
curve ball last month - saying that a piece of land the sheriff
has been eying for a new facility is off-limits for nonaviation projects
in the next 20 years. Wrangling continues between county commissioners
and airport officials to redraft the master plan to include a new jail
on eight of the 683 acres of county-owned land regulated by Federal
Aviation Administration.

Mr. McCormack remains confident the Island will build a new jail in
the next decade.

"This is just a bump in the road. The airport master plan is
just a plan. Plans can change," Mr. McCormack said.

Even if the county immediately secured a site - through
petitioning the FAA or taking adjacent land to the current facility by
eminent domain - construction will take several years, time that
inmates will continue to live under current conditions.

"I'm convinced we'll have a new jail. I think the
majority of the people are convinced of that. My worry is time,"
Mr. McCormack said.